We met the first objective. Few national libraries were represented in the 48 responding institutions to the 2014 survey (those that had implemented or were implementing linked data projects or services), and several commentators noted their absence. To address this gap, we conducted the 2015 survey earlier, between 1 June and 31 July (rather than 7 July and 15 August in 2014). We were also more pro-active in recruiting responses. We indeed had increased participation, receiving responses from 71 institutions that had implemented or were implementing linked data projects or services, including 14 from national libraries (compared to just 4 in 2014). The number of projects described also increased, from 76 in 2014 to 112 in 2015.

The idea that we could compare responses to the same set of questions to identify changes or trends proved to be unrealistic for three reasons:

Although I asked each responding institution in 2014 to also respond to the 2015 survey, only 29 did so. This is too small a pool to provide any over-arching “changes in the linked data environment.”

One year is insufficient to note significant changes.

Although repeat respondents had access to their responses in 2014, a number of their 2015 responses differed in areas that were not likely to change within a year (such as licenses, platforms, serializations, vocabularies used). It was unclear whether they really represented a change or just a different answer.

It is easier to note what did not change between the two surveys. For example:

Most linked data projects or services both consume and publish linked data. Those that publish linked data only (and not consume it) are relatively few in both survey results.

The chief motivations for publishing linked data are the same: expose data to a larger audience on the Web and demonstrate what could be done with datasets as linked data (80% or more of all respondents in each survey).

Similarly, the chief motivations for consuming linked data are the same: provide local users with a richer experience and enhance local data by consuming linked data from other sources (74% or more of all respondents in each survey).

Most respondents in each survey were libraries or networks of libraries. We had few responses from outside the library domain. In hindsight this is not surprising, as our social networks are with those who work in, for or with libraries

The 2015 survey results may be considered a partial snapshot of the (mostly) library linked data environment. Museums and digital humanities linked data projects are not well represented. I have been asked whether I plan to repeat the survey. I haven’t decided – what do you think?